If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Politicians, man...

So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.

Originally Posted by WalkingWolf

The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

Life Member NRA
Life Member GOA
2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

She was arrested, and found with a loaded firearm concealed on her. She refused a breathalyzer test, stating ," Why should I, I am not Drunk"... or something similar. Missouri gun laws state: It shall be considered a felony to possess any loaded firearm while intoxicated. WHY wasn't the issue pushed a her forced to take a breathalyzer, there was probable cause by her actions and smell of alcohol........ Lets see..... she was black, she was a black woman, she was a black woman senator, she was a black woman protesting, she was a black woman- anti-gun-with a concealed firearm-protesting in the middle of the street- impeding traffic- smelling of alcohol, ect...... I guess the time has come, if your black, you don't have to obey the laws, just look at all the stuff that went down in Ferguson, you just scream, act stupid, riot, beat people up..... because you are black.... and all the sharptons and jacksons run and applaud you, in spite of what you did wrong, because you are black. Its getting really old , really fast...... unless your black .

Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Maybe this is the time for people of color to stand up for what they believe no matter what. Fight the unconstitutional treatment. Force people to ignore race based on a mutual respect for true liberty. Take a stand. Do it right. Maybe she is evolving and now her voting will reflect that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

μολὼν λαβέ

Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator

So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.

Originally Posted by WalkingWolf

The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

Not defending Rasheed but read this from the MO laws. Notice the word AND that is the kicker.

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense; or

Not defending Rasheed but read this from the MO laws. Notice the word AND that is the kicker.

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense; or

I have asked this question to several cops, including the cop (LSTL I think) CCW instructor over at UD in St. Peters (several years ago), he/they (not all) seemed to ignore everything past the second comma. I wrote down, in the course guide, many notes (his comments), I'll organize them and post them, it has been some time and the views held then may be different today.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.

It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

I have asked this question to several cops, including the cop (LSTL I think) CCW instructor over at UD in St. Peters (several years ago), he/they (not all) seemed to ignore everything past the second comma.

Does that mean you can't have it if intoxicated, until you need it, then it's OK?

No, it does not mean that. However there has not been a court case to decide if the verbiage after the second comma regarding:

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense; or

So it is legal in MO to be in possession of a loaded firearm as long as you have not or are not using it? Is there also no penalty for carrying concealed WITHOUT your CCW present?

I believe its a 35.00 fine, if caught, carrying concealed without the permit on your person, if you were cited for that. In Missouri LEO's just run your Drivers license and it will come up if you do or don't have the permit. So, if you were to be "CAUGHT", carrying concealed without your permit, the LEO who "CAUGHT" you, would simply run you drivers license. Its up to the LEO if they want to cite you.

Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

It is a felony to possess a concealed weapon without a permit. It is perfectly legal to possess a firearm is you are intoxicated, if you don't handle or use it. There is a fine and court costs associated with carrying concealed without your permit.

There is a fine and court costs associated with carrying concealed without your permit.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

35.00 $ fine, per Missouri web site that is the minimum not sure about court costs, as I posted earlier, IF cited for carrying concealed without your permit on your person.

Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Some political subdivisions have a no booze & guns ordinance in their city codes. These code do not contain the "... and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner..." caveat contained within 571.030.1(5). I have yet to find a state appeals court/SSC decision that addresses this. The cited decision from 2009 has very little to do with you simply sitting on your front porch, packing heat, and you four beers into a six pack.

571.010.1(11) "Intoxicated", substantially impaired mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body;

A cop would have to articulate (prove) that you are/were "substantially impaired" to get a intoxicated & packing heat charge to stick.

Consider this; if you are deemed too impaired to merely possess a firearm (OC), how could you be not too impaired to defend yourself with that firearm.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.

It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

The old law was HORRIBLY written

"possession while intoxicated" however "intoxicated" and "possession" were BOTH undefined and this was indeed a felony firearms charge.

Basically, if you were having a beer on your porch and had an unloaded, disassembled and broken firearm locked inside the house in a locked safe you could be charged and convicted under the old law.

Now I am going to come to her defense at this point because we are all equal under the law and despite the fact that she voted against every single protection afforded to her does not limit their existence.

1. "Thought to be under the influence" well I am certainly not going to jump up and holler that the popo has this right because frankly it is just an often used LIE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT to go fishing for more, they are trained to use it. I have had them tell me I seemed to have been drinking and smelled like it when nothing but coffee and water had entered my body for MONTHS. Nothing about them putting it into their reports that they thought she might be drinking validates it in any way what so ever.

2. Have you EVER heard this woman speak unscripted? Seriously, she might do ok on TV sometimes but if you go to a committee hearing where she speaks without a speech writer, you would swear she was drunk, high, on crack, on meth, on heroin, and sniffing glue all at the same time. I am not kidding you, it is hard to believe this woman is not actually legally retarded so if the cops do not know her already, it would be real easy to think she was impaired because of her idiotic behaviors and comments.

3. She was not handling her firearm on any reports I have seen and the law is clear, intoxicated and handling in a negligent manner is what puts a person in violation.

As far as the breathalyzer goes...FOR WHAT? In MO there is no public drunkenness law, she was not driving, she was not handling her firearm, what exactly were the cops fishing for? An opportunity to lie about what happened during the arrest and then be able to discredit any complaint with "proof" she was drunk and is not remembering correctly?

Sorry, I think she is a **** as a politician, a total idiot lacking even average intelligence as a person, and a person with exactly the same protections under law as myself and this would be one of the few times ever she conducted herself wisely.

I do still however think it is quite funny her drunk butt got swooped up by the popo for sitting in the street and refusing to move when ordered exposing her hypocritical position on guns, that is classic! She has done that in hearings at the capitol, even pointing out to everyone in the room her firearm, I am telling you, this is a live and in front of you idiot to be observed for true comic relief.

John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

Not to exceed 35 bucks. If it is a ticket, go to the cop shop and pay it like a parking ticket.

Not a criminal action is clearly defined, 571.121.1

"Failure to comply with this subsection shall not be a criminal offense but the concealed carry permit or endorsement holder may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed thirty-five dollars."

I would offer it is substantially LESS than a parking ticket and is one of the BETTER aspects to the MO CCW laws. Makes it VERY clear there is no path what so ever to turn it into a criminal action and arrest.

John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

As long as you do not use the firearm is a negligent manner, you are breaking no law as RSMO is written. I carry when drinking all the time. There is even an exception to the penalty of subsection 5 that covers you if you needed to discharge in self defense.